Skip to content

Why is the manosphere on the rise? UN Women sounds the alarm over online misogyny

Technology
347 111 0
  • Let's try this again: If, as you say "women do empathy, men do resilience", then why should childcare be 70:30? Why not 50:50 so the kids get taught empathy and resilience in equal measure? Also, how can you even be empathetic if you lack in the resilience department.

    Because more women than men want to be in daycare, it's unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women. And the gender ratio of employees doesn't mean thats also the ratio of what kids will take away from this. Does this mean that in daycare without any men the kids have only 50% of the care they need? Of course not.

    Again, ONE DOESNT EXCLUDE THE OTHER. Everyone has empathy and resilience, but so far in general women tend to be better at empathy and men in resilience. Why force one to do both, when both can thrive in what they do better?

  • You are making an excellent point right up until your last paragraph. What 15 year old boy wants to be Mr Fucking Rogers? Sure, maybe they want to be him in like 40 years (but only the version of him who was secretly a marine sniper covered in tattoos everywhere his sweaters hid). What does a 15 year old boy who is vulnerable to the manosphere want? He wants to get paid and get laid.

    Trying to shove a 15 year old's raging hormones and desire for rebellion and independence into a Mr Rogers box will only lead to... more rebellion. Give the kids role models who are good people, who also succeed at things they care about.

    You do realise that the behaviour you're describing is largely programmed, yes?

    Apart from the urge to blow loads everywhere

  • Fuck you. Losers that can't be laid. Yes. When they are constantly told to man up and get girls.. Where do you think they go? Wtf is wrong with you. You replied to this with exactly the lack of equipment to handle the manosphere they were talking about. Without compassion you are even worse as you ruin your and others chance to fix it. Hateful and completely useless to say these things. You really think the kids think "I'm gonna be an asshole" for no reason? It takes time to be brain washed by the pick up artists. It just speaks to them

    They are losers for not following positive role models in their lives like coaches, older siblings, and teachers. They follow the youtube algorithm shoved down their throats.

    I do feel bad because there is no job market for young men and women that pays anything.

    And yes, having having coached little league ball for decades, kids will be assholes for no reason.

  • You are completely overthinking it. I readily acknowledged it is reductive. And my example was an example, a vibe. I do not, in fact, fish. Nor consider desert dwellers to be less masculine or something.

    A typical male experience in a hetero relationship is that women are overly fussy over many things, I think most of it is culture (a generalised fear of a catty mother in law not considering you good enough for her son causing a fear of losing your partner because he might listen to her instead of you) so when we hear "men are simple" we don't hear "men are stupid" but "finally, someone who understands the pointlessness of having seasonal napkins". If you wanted to say "men are stupid" you'd have said "men are primitive", it's not hard to tell apart. We do, in fact, have social and contextual awareness, I freely admit that we use obliviousness as a conscious strategy.

    Are there men who are totally into decorative towels? Sure, but if we hedge everything with "but not everyone does that", "of course, all people are unique and different" then communication becomes a chore. It's like hearing "sunscreen is important" and insisting "of course, if it's winter that's a different issue, we wouldn't want to essentialise weather to be carcinogenic". Come on.

    And our interaction here, ironically, falls into a similar pattern. "No, really, it's fine that we don't have decorative towels" -- "There must be a deeper meaning behind this, a social force, someone pulling his strings, why would anyone not want to have complex things like decorative towels, what is the meaning of this, am I on top of the situation"... no. He meant what he said, exactly that, and nothing more: My hands are dry, the towels didn't make them dirty again, that's all I need from a towel. I want my pants to have pockets so I buy them with pockets instead of worrying whether they ruin the silhouette and agonising over compromises. There's a lot of freedom in simplicity. That inner mother in law, though? Of course everything is complicated, how else would she be able to drive you crazy.

    I've got a song for you.

    Bruh 🤢

    You just sterotyped women so fuckin gross here. Jesus christ

  • Lots of people die in the United States as it is. Homelessness is rising drastically. How long until you're next to be put out onto the street? Your employer can't wait until they can automate your job and fire you.

    Also, the United States has a long history of carrying out genocide even prior to Gaza. Odd given your fallacious implication that capitalism is peaceful

    Top tier whataboutism.

    Anyway, my point is that any time someone says "I know exactly what I'm doing. Follow me in my massive restructuring of society!" The results typically land somewhere between a massive waste of money for unappealing infrastructure, to everyone dies in war and starvation. The particular political bent doesn't matter. Restructuring a society is like cutting all the leaves off a tree so you can put them where you think they should go.

  • You're part of the problem

    Nah, I'm just not a fucking loser

  • Fuck you. Losers that can't be laid. Yes. When they are constantly told to man up and get girls.. Where do you think they go? Wtf is wrong with you. You replied to this with exactly the lack of equipment to handle the manosphere they were talking about. Without compassion you are even worse as you ruin your and others chance to fix it. Hateful and completely useless to say these things. You really think the kids think "I'm gonna be an asshole" for no reason? It takes time to be brain washed by the pick up artists. It just speaks to them

    Fuck you.

    I think someone is missing what "losers that can't be laid" actually means.

    Short answer: no.

    Longer answer: Aw HELL no!

  • Top tier whataboutism.

    Anyway, my point is that any time someone says "I know exactly what I'm doing. Follow me in my massive restructuring of society!" The results typically land somewhere between a massive waste of money for unappealing infrastructure, to everyone dies in war and starvation. The particular political bent doesn't matter. Restructuring a society is like cutting all the leaves off a tree so you can put them where you think they should go.

    The current structure of society is wrong and is extremely harmful. Oligarchy is an abomination which produces terrible outcomes.

    You wouldn't choose this system in a vacuum. Therefore, the system must be fundamentally altered. To oppose this restructuring is both cruel and irrational. It is the epitome of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good - you're so afraid of change that you'd rather keep an evil system in place.

    Such paralyzing cowardice is not reasonable, and it is even less reasonable to feel smug about such cowardice. If you are going to protect this harmful system, then the more appropriate emotion to feel is shame.

  • we should change our own environments so that they don’t feel the need anymore to have their own space.

    "we" unequivocally means "men", right? And how is this done... by preventing exclusive communities and only having inclusive communities. "Online" and "safe spaces" are oxymorons.

    You're doing fine without the first half of oxygen there.

  • Eh. Nothin' to lose.

    What are men’s problems? What problem do we suffer that also doesn’t affect women?

    Women have strong support movement on their side. It's not something they gain only through their sex, but rather something they gain I think mostly due to the same gender stereotypes that also act against them.

    Same stereotypes which isolate men and make them suffer in silence and alone, making showing any sign of weakness a fatal mistake.

    Isn’t that what you are doing to feminist right now? Isn’t that what the article is talking about with the man-o-sphere?

    I honestly don't see your point here - what commenter above you said is right, and sure as hell they didn't mention that it doesn't work the other way around.

    Lol, like we men are immune from corporations promoting masculinity? Old spice, axe body spray, every sports based commercial… What gender do you think the majority of the CEO for these companies are?

    What are men problems, huh? Like, dunno, expectation to always go after that false masculinity. Also, as far as I understand it, what you quoted above this part is just continuation of the point above it, nothing to add here.

    Capitalism isn’t a fucking gender problem…it is the thing making everyone’s lives miserable. If we wanted to examine gender in capitalism we can take a look at which of the genders gains more from the system. What percent of the oligarchs are men, how many billionaires are men, how many senators and judges that keep the system going… it’s mostly dudes.

    Yeah, but affects genders differently. Men are eaten, ground to a paste and then spat out. Women are bellitled and their work is seen as substandard. One side doesn't make the other any less, both are problems and commenter above you didn't say men have it worse, just that they suffer from it.

    And the rich switch genders or something? Women can’t be part of the struggle against capitalism? What is wrong with you guys, do you not have mothers, sisters, women in your lives who are just friends?

    What commenter above you is alluding to is the point of the whole post - Men do not get help. We do not have the same societal networks that women have to get together and stand up. And even if women decided to fight for us, it's for naught until we are able to start getting up by ourselves.

    Young white men are being squeezed out of the ownership class for the first time and it’s because it’s the only demographic that hasn’t already been squeezed at this late stage of capitalism. The problem isn’t with women, it is the economic system that dangles a carrot for some, so they’ll wield the stick against others…and we’re all out of carrots. Welcome to the party, everyone else has been getting the stick the whole fucking time.

    'kay. What's with that obsession with women? Commenter above you mentioned once that feminism can use men to portray them as evil, which they do because guess who makes them suffer most, and yet due to that you immediately went and threw everything they said as if they did nothing else but accuse women of men's suffering.

    All in all, as far as I understand the comment above you, all boils down to:

    • Women gain on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.
    • Corporations gain on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.
    • Rich gain, and even if not then loose nothing on current situation so it makes sense they don't act.

    Which are answers to question at the beggining:

    Is there even an incentive for solving men’s problems?

    IMO, the incentive is for us to move our asses, take notes from women and build our own support networks. But that is actually fought against by conservatists/right-wingers, because lonely and lost men make cheap and easily influenced canon fodder.

    What are men problems, huh? Like, dunno, expectation to always go after that false masculinity.

    And you think we don't have expectations foisted on us? Expectation to raise the children. Expectation to do the housework. All while conforming to standards of beauty that range from the uncomfortable to the literally lethal.

    Compassionate fucking Buddha, there's a reason why the manosphere is pointed at in disbelief and it's right fucking here!

  • You don't believe in equality, PERIOD. Because people like you oppose women being drafted. You also deny systemic misandry like the alimony laws & even support policies like abolishing prisons for women & reduced sentencing for women & only women.

    There are multiple documented evidences of feminists shaming men into getting drafted while they get to be safe & secure & one of their excuses was "We have a crisis in masculinity" & Finland has a women-majority govt, of course the diversity part is a lie.

    EU is led by feminists & BTW, pandering to women is also feminism, there are literally reserved seats for women & a male-only draft. These are all Equity to you huh

    I like how you're putting in so much effort into pushing the narrative that it's men who do it, when the biggest warmongers just so happen to be women & there's not a single word of opposition to the draft by feminists.

    Like the White-feather movement being nationalistic, yet it was still women who shamed men into fighting the war (women didn't want to go to war & even today women as a whole are opposed to conscription for women)

    Reminder women in the military are placed in either guard duty or administration.

    Because people like you oppose women being drafted.

    Anybody sane opposes the draft for women. Because anybody sane opposes the draft for anybody, a set that clearly includes women.

    Stop blaming straw feminists for your own shortcoming you grotty little boy.

  • Bill Maher is Joe Rogan for people who think they're too smart for Joe Rogan. He never has an important point to make about anything and is usually completely misinformed. This is a rich white Jewish guy that rarely sees any value in issues raised by any other demographic, yet always complains any time there is even a mild issue facing rich/white/Jewish guys.

    Women make up more than 50% of the population, but make up 30% of the leads in Hollywood roles, up from the previous 15% - conspiracy of the woke!
    Or, maybe.. The marketing teams figured out that women would rather watch a movie with a female lead more often. Or maybe.. its a load of horseshit.

    Can't believe I'm reading defence of the manosphere on Lemmy, but here we are.

    Believe it. There's a single community in the Lemmyverse that is "women only". And it's a fucking magnet for passing men who absolutely have to make sure they're heard in this one single community when 99.44% of the other communities are so dominated by men that women participating is practically a unicorn.

    Even the "leftists" of Lemmy can't stand a women's space. Lemmy is the manosphere!

  • Because more women than men want to be in daycare, it's unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women. And the gender ratio of employees doesn't mean thats also the ratio of what kids will take away from this. Does this mean that in daycare without any men the kids have only 50% of the care they need? Of course not.

    Again, ONE DOESNT EXCLUDE THE OTHER. Everyone has empathy and resilience, but so far in general women tend to be better at empathy and men in resilience. Why force one to do both, when both can thrive in what they do better?

    Because more women than men want to be in daycare it’s unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women.

    I don't expect it. It is you who is insisting for no discernible reason that 70:30 is, and I quote, "ideal". It is you who is saying "guys get some other job I don't care how much you want the job and how good you'd be at it, we already have a quota of 30%".

  • Bruh 🤢

    You just sterotyped women so fuckin gross here. Jesus christ

    I was pointing at a pattern, cultural at that, and all patterns are reductive. If you can't see the pattern I alluded to you have my condolences, and if it hit you like a brick then you also have my condolences.

    The only thing I won't stand for here is saying is "pointing at patterns is bad". These kinds of conversations need to be had if issues are to be understood. And they need to be understood, assumptions have to be questioned, before anything can change for the better.

    And if you just don't care about the issue, which is perfectly fine, then FFS don't womensplain the male perception of "men are simple creatures" to men. You came out swinging, remember.

  • What are men problems, huh? Like, dunno, expectation to always go after that false masculinity.

    And you think we don't have expectations foisted on us? Expectation to raise the children. Expectation to do the housework. All while conforming to standards of beauty that range from the uncomfortable to the literally lethal.

    Compassionate fucking Buddha, there's a reason why the manosphere is pointed at in disbelief and it's right fucking here!

    Hey. Nice try. My own comment tho, slightly higher.

    Women have strong support movement on their side. It's not something they gain only through their sex, but rather something they gain I think mostly due to the same gender stereotypes that also act against them.

    I never said women don't have expectations on them, in fact I literally said the opposite ^^ In the part you quoted I underlined just the fact that men face certain problems, not that only men face certain problems.

  • Because people like you oppose women being drafted.

    Anybody sane opposes the draft for women. Because anybody sane opposes the draft for anybody, a set that clearly includes women.

    Stop blaming straw feminists for your own shortcoming you grotty little boy.

    Except the feminists actually do not oppose the male draft via their collective silence you gaslighter, just like how they don't promote anti-false allegation laws or gender-neutral laws.

    Stop trying to move goalposts & absolve feminists of their lies when feminists now use the "crisis of masculinity" excuse to bring back the draft in EU.

    But then I wouldn't expect any empathy for men's plight from anyone who comes from LazySoci.al

  • Pretty sure I've commented this on Lemmy before, but I'm gonna drop a link to this Struthless video again because I think it's pretty good at getting the point and really reflected my experience as someone who was once a "young man on the internet", too.

    The code section in particular is gold and exactly the type of online content we need. A big reason why chuds like Tate are successful is because they provide a code ("compass, outlets, who you're with, how it feels"), which before the internet was something everyone built for themselves, actively picking and choosing, while nowadays the algorithms do the picking+choosing for us. Or, well, before the algorithmic internet boomers largely got that stuff from old institutions (be that church or the party), Gen X from rebellion, then come us sweet-spot millennials seeing the boomer/X conflict and having access to previously unheard of amounts of information to actively choose from, and then Gen Y and younger getting fed by the outrage machine.

    So what we need is algorithm-compatible content that challenges the whippersnappers to build their own code, in an active manner. Give guidelines, give examples, but don't decide for them (that makes you no better than the algorithm or for that matter Gen X and boomers) and definitely don't make it a list of don'ts: They're in the process of adapting instincts to currentyear, good living requires finding a configuration that denies none, our task is to help them not being maladaptive, steering away from both neurosis (denial of instinct) as well as asocial BS (exploiting in/outgroup instincts for power plays, oxytocin can be vile). To do that you need to point out the various fundamental drives, validate all of them, make that shit resonate as deeply as possible so they spot the drives themselves instead of some social construct painting over it, enable them to draw a map of their needs, then give examples, plural, of how it can all be integrated in a coherent fashion.

  • Believe it. There's a single community in the Lemmyverse that is "women only". And it's a fucking magnet for passing men who absolutely have to make sure they're heard in this one single community when 99.44% of the other communities are so dominated by men that women participating is practically a unicorn.

    Even the "leftists" of Lemmy can't stand a women's space. Lemmy is the manosphere!

    I know exactly the community you mean but I haven't interacted with it much beyond occasional visits and upvotes. It's sad to hear that perspective of Lemmy, because it does get rose-tinted as a bit of a leftist utopia and this is the first time I've seen the ugliness. I really appreciate it being shared.

  • Because more women than men want to be in daycare it’s unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women.

    I don't expect it. It is you who is insisting for no discernible reason that 70:30 is, and I quote, "ideal". It is you who is saying "guys get some other job I don't care how much you want the job and how good you'd be at it, we already have a quota of 30%".

    Did I say anywhere that the 30:70 means a really had 30:70 cap and that nobody after that is free to join or leave the job? Did I say that the 30% is exactly, not more not less, the amount of men who want to for ex. work in daycare?

  • Believe it. There's a single community in the Lemmyverse that is "women only". And it's a fucking magnet for passing men who absolutely have to make sure they're heard in this one single community when 99.44% of the other communities are so dominated by men that women participating is practically a unicorn.

    Even the "leftists" of Lemmy can't stand a women's space. Lemmy is the manosphere!

    you sound pissy and project hate in every of your responses and on to everything you perceive to involve a man. I feel sorry for you. However, you're making up facts that the other communities are "so dominated by men" to appease your distorted perceptions of the world.

  • Uber, Lyft oppose some bills that aim to prevent assaults during rides

    Technology technology
    12
    94 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    F
    California is not Colorado nor is it federal No shit, did you even read my comment? Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate. People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No. Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”. Here’s just one little but relevant section: Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company's digital network, the person shall: Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission's rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company. A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver. A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: (c) (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.; An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.; An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted. A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver. Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual. An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver: More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver; or A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years. So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.
  • 16 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    R
    Even with pirated Spotify the worsening of recommendations pushed me to pirate another service. Which is a win for Spotify, I guess.
  • Tesla customers in France sue over brand becoming 'extreme right'

    Technology technology
    32
    1
    509 Stimmen
    32 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    P
    sorry I meant it in a joking way, I should have worded that better
  • 282 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    fingolfinz@lemmy.worldF
    Magats wanted people with their same mental capacity to run things and oh look, it’s lots of incompetence
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Front Brake Lights Could Drastically Diminish Road Accident Rates

    Technology technology
    337
    1
    595 Stimmen
    337 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    M
    I always say there are drivers out there who only survive by the grace of other drivers.
  • 82 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    sfxrlz@lemmy.dbzer0.comS
    As a Star Wars yellowtext: „In the final days of the senate, senator organa…“
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    V
    Here's how you know it's not ready: AI hasn't replaced a single CEO.